Summations Only

Not all that meaningful though. After all, Mitt Romney got more votes than any winner from 2000 going back. Her margin was comparable to Bush 2004. No, that's not what happened. Trump got 57% of the vote necessary to win the Presidency. And disliked by too many. Yeah, if the electoral system was such that most popular candidate wins, she would have won. But that doesn't change the fact that this is not the electoral system and instead the system is who is the most popular according to the States, not the people.The argument wouldn't be necessary in that case to explain how she lost, since she wouldn't have. But since she did lose, the fact that a significant number of people who would have voted Democrat were it not for Clinton being the candidate may have contributed to her loss.She lost Republican voters who voted for Obama. She lost left wing voters for being too right. She lost 'change' voters for being too 'status quo', she lost pacifists for her government actions, she lost social justice folks for paying lip service without the history to back it up. And so on and so forth.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And yet she still managed to earn the second largest vote total in history.

---

​

Not all that meaningful though.

---

Incorrect. That she managed to get the second largest vote total in history does not mean that the Democratic message "wasn't resonating." It clearly was. Save for one election, more people voted for her and her message than ever.That she didn't carry the electoral college means something else is at play.

quote:

---

After all, Mitt Romney got more votes than any winner from 2000 going back. Her margin was comparable to Bush 2004.

---

That simply means more people are voting.You still need to account for the fact that she won the election. Suppose the Electoral College followed the popular vote...would we still be having this discussion? Because all it took was fewer than 100,000 votes for that to have happened.I'm hardly saying that there is nothing to be learned by examining the Democratic message and how it is being broadcast. But the idea that it "isn't resonating" is false by simple inspection. As we have known for decades: Most people agree with the Democratic message and in order to get a Democrat elected requires more votes than a Republican needs for structural reasons.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But she still beat Trump's ass in the election.

---

​

No, that's not what happened.

---

Yes, it is. She beat him by 3M votes.

quote:

---

Trump got 57% of the vote necessary to win the Presidency.

---

No, he got the Electoral College which is not the vote. Do not confuse the two.

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you reconcile the two? She was LIKED by so many.

---

​

And disliked by too many.

---

By what do you make this claim? She won the vote. The only reason she didn't win the Electoral College is quite literally a handful of votes. To claim that she was "disliked by too many" is plainly false by simple inspection.

quote:

---

But that doesn't change the fact that this is not the electoral system and instead the system is who is the most popular according to the States, not the people.

---

Indeed. But you are confusing the Electoral College with the voters. You keep blaming her for not connecting with the voters as the reason she lost, but that simply isn't true. She connected with the voters which is why she won the vote. The only reason she is not president right now is because of a *structural* cause, not an *electoral* or *message* cause.If you want to discuss campaign strategy with regards to gaming the Electoral College, then have at it. But to campaign on the concept of "My policies and plans are better" is hardly a stupid plan.

quote:

---

The argument wouldn't be necessary in that case to explain how she lost, since she wouldn't have.

---

But it's not much of an argument if it vanishes when a *structural* cause is removed. The claim is that there was something wrong with the "message." That somehow people "didn't like" her. That because they couldn't connect with the "message" and "didn't like" her, they didn't vote for her.But how does that go away if she took the Electoral College? Increasing her vote take by less than two-tenths of one percent doesn't have any significant bearing on what the "message" is and whether or not voters "liked her." So if we wouldn't be having this conversation if just a few hundred people per district in a couple states had voted for her instead of Trump or had bothered to vote at all, then the claim that the problem is *electoral* is trivially proven false.She is not president because of the message or her "likability." She is not president *in*spite* of those factors. Most people like her message. Most people like her.

quote:

---

She lost Republican voters who voted for Obama. She lost left wing voters for being too right. She lost 'change' voters for being too 'status quo', she lost pacifists for her government actions, she lost social justice folks for paying lip service without the history to back it up. And so on and so forth.

---

And you act like she didn't pick anybody up. After all, in a contest based solely upon that target demographic, she smoked the competition: She beat Sanders by more raw votes than she beat Trump.And some of your criteria are nonsensical: "Change" voters for being too "status quo"? If Obama is the example of "change" and she was continuing the Obama train, how is that "status quo"? Unless "change" voters are feckless at which point they become unreliable for everyone and can't be accounted for."Paying lip service without the history to back it up"? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! I bet you really believe that, don't you? See, Clinton Derangement Syndrome is real and I don't say that just because I was in Little Rock last weekend and was faced with the Clinton legacy. I've known about her history for a long time and so would anybody else who paid the slightest attention to reality rather than the lies put forward by Republicans in order to feed CDS. But since you're bringing up these traits of Clinton that cause voters to not vote for her, I notice you aren't including one of the bigger ones:She's a woman. If she were a man, many of those negatives would never be considered. But because she's a woman....But again, you seem to forget that she won the vote. The second largest vote total in history.Again, the only reason we are having his conversation is that less than two-tenths of one percent of the vote. To pretend like that's the most significant reason she isn't President is to ignore reality.

My mistake, I thought absolute numbers weren't meaningful because Oh. Yeah - that. Which is why margins are the meaningful measure. And her margin, in the popular vote, was comparable to Bush 2004 or Carter 1976. Not traditionally considered resounding victories. She lost the election. You can (theoretically) get over 70% of the popular vote and still lose the election. So you are saying that 100,000 or so people not voting for her was too many to secure her the win? Seems to support the 'too many' people disliked her hypothesis. I can't see anyone in this thread saying anything about resonance. Pretty sure he beat her by 74 votes. The votes of the electoral college are the only votes that count towards the Presidency. I'm not confused, I'm being accurate. It turns out a handful was 'too many'. I don't see why there can't be more than one reason. No. The claim is that too many people didn't like her. Not that people didn't like her. A few hundred per district in a couple of States is apparently 'too many'. It is indisputable that most voters prefer her and he message over Trump's. It is also indisputable that too many people didn't like her enough to give her votes. This includes people who normally vote Democrat.I've never seen so much animosity towards a Democrat nominee from progressive as with Clinton. Maybe it has happened before, but it looks to me that a big reason she got as many votes as she did was because of her specific opponent. A less crazy Republican may have inspired less 'hold my nose and vote' types to vote for someone they disliked just to keep someone they hate out. No I don't. I act like she dropped too many. The Republican voters for instance, I posted some numbers on earlier. She lost 15% votes here, and gained about 8% for a net loss. The question remains - how many people that voted for Clinton would also have voted for Sanders in the general election? How many would Sanders gain vs lose. Unfortunately, as I explained to Percy, the selection system doesn't even allow us to estimate this. How is 'the same as the last 8 years' status quo? I'm not sure that really needs an answer does it? In any event, I'm just reporting what people said. Here is one such person;

quote:

---

Nothing Clinton says or intends to do if elected will fundamentally transform the circumstances of the most vulnerable in this countryeven with her concessions to the Sanders campaign. Like the majority of Democratic politicians these days, she is a corporate Democrat intent on maintaining the status quo. And I have had enough of all of them.

​

What has Clinton offered the American people as a substantive alternative to the status quo?

---

Hillary Clinton: Why I Won't Vote for Her | Time It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what the voters believed. Same article:

quote:

---

We hear politicians talk about voting rights or Roe v. Wade, or stand in the pulpit with black preachers or express solidarity with women around the world, and we assume that their policies reflect their rhetoric. On closer examination, nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s just the latest instance of a puerile multiculturalism that changes little and allows a few people to feel good about themselves.

---

Which, it turns out, was too much. The reasons why people disliked her are not terribly important to the point that too many of them did. What the most significant reason is is difficult to ascertain. But it seems to me that candidate selection and electoral vote distribution are things that are more likely to be improved upon sooner than getting rid of the electoral college.

Modulous responds to me:

quote:

---

And her margin, in the popular vote, was comparable to Bush 2004 or Carter 1976. Not traditionally considered resounding victories.

---

She still won. I realize that you don't like that fact, but she still won. And you still haven't explained how your argument has any semblance of sanity if it vanishes if you change less than two-tenths of one percent of the vote.

quote:

---

She lost the election. You can (theoretically) get over 70% of the popular vote and still lose the election.

---

Incorrect. She won the election. It seems you have confused the Electoral College for the election. Shall we spin the merry-go-round again?

quote:

---

So you are saying that 100,000 or so people not voting for her was too many to secure her the win? Seems to support the 'too many' people disliked her hypothesis.

---

Once again, you seem to have abandoned any semblance of sanity with regard to this argument: 100,000 people is not "too many." It is microscopic. In more technical terms, it is the logical error of equivocation. When someone says that "too many people disliked her," it indicates that there was a large population when in reality, it was tiny. Yes, there is a naive sense that "too many" people voted in such a way that she did not carry the Electoral College (there's that confusion of the election for the Electoral College again), but that doesn't change it from being naive.Her message resonated with the voters. That's why she won the election.

quote:

---

I can't see anyone in this thread saying anything about resonance.

---

Logical error. Let us not play dumb.

quote:

---

I've never seen so much animosity towards a Democrat nominee from progressive as with Clinton.

---

Clinton Derangement Syndrome is real.

quote:

---

The reasons why people disliked her are not terribly important to the point that too many of them did.

---

And thus, you show that you aren't in any position to discuss the matter. That is, after all, the point of this part of the discussion. Remember, *you* brought it up: So if it isn't important, why did you mention it? Oh, that's right...because those things aren't true. You ignore the external factors that distorted her positions and policies. Take a look at RAZD's comments about the minimum wage. He still hasn't managed to answer the direct question I put to him: What was Clinton's policy statement regarding the minimum wage? Question: How many policy speeches did Clinton give during the campaign? And how many were covered by the press? There' s a reason that the people who saw Clinton speak had a very different opinion about her than those who only got their information from the news. Compare this to the media's literal covering of an empty podium simply because Trump was going to say something of no substance.That's a *structural* issue, not a *policy* issue. In another thread, there are people complaining that the "Democrats need to broadcast thus-and-so message." The thing is, they do. But it isn't covered. During the debate regarding healthcare in 2010, the Sunday shows didn't have a single speaker on who was an advocate of single-payer or universal coverage. Not one. And Sanders wasn't the only one speaking of it. People seem to forget that *Clinton* tried to get universal coverage done back in the 90s. There are 120 cosponsors of the Medicare for All bill currently in Congress but does anybody talk about it? Democrats *do* talk about these things, but nobody wants to listen.That's a *structural* issue.

That last change in Clinton's LGBT position was a small last step of an evolving process in a consistent direction that had begun over a decade before. She has the position you want, she arrived at that position consistently without any zig-zagging or equivocating. You don't get any more than that on most issues from most politicians. Oh, come on, get real, the US is just fine for you right now and on into the future. I'm sure the UK feeling about LGBT issues is no more uniform across the country than is the US. If you want to settle in New Orleans you'll be fine.
Same for New York, LA, San Francisco, etc.Plus it does make a big difference whether Clinton or Trump won. The equation changes enormously had Clinton been elected. Trump will have a very long term effect. He's already put one conservative judge on the Supreme Court, and he's likely to add one to two more during his current administration. Supreme Court justices serve for life. Thomas has been on the court for over a quarter century. Well, as I thought I said, Dole was the Republican willing to run in an election that Republicans in general didn't think could be won. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm among Republicans for running that year. I forget who else was around at the time, but no doubt there were Republicans who could have done better than Dole, though they still would have lost, and Buchanan wasn't one of them. No, they're not all jokes. There are many politicians of great honesty and integrity and who possess empathy and compassion. That doesn't come close to describing Pat Buchanan and I have no idea why you bring him up. He was Nixon on steroids. He was William F. Buckley without the intellect. He was Trump before Trump turned uncaringness and insensitivity into an art form. This is still silly and addresses none of the reasons I gave for why it's silly. A politician gradually earns greater attention and respect and power over time, plus there are unpredictable factors. History clearly shows that in every election year viable candidates emerge who were not on the radar four years before. Thinking that they would have been equally reasonable candidates four years before with four years less growth and experience is silly. Kennedy wouldn't have been a viable candidate in 1956. Carter would not have been a viable candidate in 1972. Michael Dukakis would not have been a viable candidate in 1984. Bill Clinton would not have been a viable candidate in 1988. Obama would not have been a viable candidate in 2004. It looks to me more like wishful thinking for viable candidates closer to your views. You're fooling yourself that these viable candidates are out there somewhere, that we're just using the wrong tools to find them. Politicians closer to your views exist, but not with a chance at the presidency. Well, yes, of course it's perception. The idiots who think Clinton evil are no more going to be convinced otherwise than those who, even after this 9-month circus, think Trump good and competent. I can't believe you keep raising this point. Clinton won more votes than Trump. She got the 2nd most vote total in US history. Your conclusion: non-optimal candidate. If I were a Democratic candidate I would put you in one of the tiny categories of voter who is nearly impossible to satisfy. But I don't think protest votes are a problem. How many times now have I called 2016 a special situation because of the possibility of Trump's election, with people like you casting votes (or no vote) counter to their own best interests? Well, sure, but it still leaves me wondering why you keep shifting to the 50-100 year timeframe when I've repeatedly expressed a lack of interest in looking out that far. Maybe someone else here is interested (I think I've said that before). Yes, protest votes exist. They've always existed. They're only getting mentioned now (at least by me) because of the irony of registering a protest vote that contributes to an outcome that is the epitome of many things the protest vote was supposed to be a protest against. I think you mean that Party B will want to move to the left, as the diagram indicates. You can think of it that way, but I think of it as voting against your own best interests. Another way of looking at it is a correlation with wealth. The wealthier a country, the more it can afford the policies of the left. The world may no longer be growing wealthier. What you see as a long term trend toward the left may actually just be a side effect of an increasing wealth trend, and if that trend stops then so does the trend toward the left. And when you talk about the long term I explain how the effects of a Trump presidency could be very long term. I didn't say that. To me you're an idealist with fantasies about a future that can't be imagined. You pulled out a quote from my Message 1359 on October 16th, which is now seven days ago. There's nothing wrong with going back to old posts, but when you don't say where a quote is coming from it does make the conversation hard to follow. Consistent? No, of course not. Sometimes you're discussing how to fix things by 2018-2020, sometimes you're discussing how to fix things 50-100 years out, and sometimes you're talking about sending messages. Which is fine, but you tend to shift contexts without indication. Uh, how is that rebuttal or even rational? Either vote for Clinton or the only other viable choice will win, Trump. And not voting for Clinton was contrary to the best interests of those who wanted to vote Democratic but found they couldn't, because whatever negatives they associated with Clinton, Trump's negatives far outweighed them. It was arguably the large number of Democrats or Democratic leaning voters who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton who caused the election of Trump. Uh, no. You achieve changing their vote by convincing them that Trump had a real chance of getting elected. Your long-term thinking makes sense to you because it's yours, but most people, even many now who voted for Trump, see what a poor choice that was (please excuse the extreme understatement) and that allowing Trump to get elected was a far greater insult to their political feelings than voting for Clinton.--Percy

Winning the elections results in being elected to the office of President. You have confused the popular vote for the election. But that isn't the election. The popular vote number has no bearing on the Presidency. She 'won' the popular vote - but there's no tangible prize for that contest. She lost election which is held by the electoral college. I didn't expect myself to be explaining what the phrase 'too many' means to an adult of your educational standards. "Too many" does not mean "many"."How many children did he kill?"
"One"
"That's still too many children"I am not saying that one child is many children. I'm saying one is one too many children to have killed.So, she Clinton had 120,000 fewer voters in the right places who disliked her enough to not vote for her, she would have gained enough votes in the electoral college to win. It's both true, and the intended meaning and indeed, how English works.Too many does not mean, as you claim, a large number. It means more than was required.If I have 11 apples and a box that will only fit 10 apples. I have too many apples to fit in the box. 1 too many, in fact. 1 is not a large number of apples.The point being that there were a large number (relative to other elections) of these people being very vocal all the way through the election cycle, and the Democrats chose to go with her anyway. Had someone with a comparable message, experience and skill stood, but without that baggage, maybe the Democrats would have won. Or maybe if someone focussing on different elements of the Democrat message stood, with a slightly different message, she'd have won. Whatever the case, Clinton was disliked by more than enough numbers to result in her loss. Not really - the claim is that she did not resonate with enough people. Or in other terms she anti-resonated with too many people. This is a different claim than she did not resonate with 'people'. Well no, the point of this part of the discussion is that, whatever the reasons, there were too many people that disliked her enough to not vote for her for her to get elected as President.We can certainly discuss some of the reasons, if you'd like, but it is orthogonal to the point that sparked this sub discussion. For illustrative purposes. No, that's wrong. Not really, no. But if people disliked her because external factors distorted her position that wouldn't change the fact that people in those groups disliked her for those reasons - even if they were wrong to do so.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Absolutely true Percy.It is NOT normal behavior for amerikans to be truthful and honest by labeling their leaders as war criminals.On the other hand, it IS normal amerikan behavior, not to mention much easier and less painful on the ol’ racist mindset, to disregard facts and evidence, such as Hillary’s criminal actions that led to the violent deaths of dark-skinned Iraqi children. Yes-Sir-Eee, when confronted with uncomfortable facts, it is NORMAL amerikan behavior to declare fake news, use an ad hominem attack, and then quickly move on.Thanks for demonstrating normal amerikan behavior.But perhaps if I provide better/more evidence, maybe then my argument will sway you?After all, all amerikans are open-minded and quick to change their minds when confronted with horrible truths, right? Just look at the way all amerikans got on board the theory of climate change once the facts were known . . . OH HA HA, . . . (Dronestar wiping tears of hilarity from his eyes), I slay myself.Okay, okay . . . I’ll try anyway Percy . . .
_______In addition to the war crime of using phosphorus weapons on civilians, Hillary should also be charged with torture, the use of cluster bombs, unproportional use of military power against a civilian presence and the collective punishment of civilians, especially in Fulujah, and using DEPLETED URANIUM weapons that continues to cause birth defects in Iraq.ALL of these crimes are contained within the SUPREME crime of aggression: the invasion of Iraq which Hillary authorized . . .According to the Nuremberg laws:

quote:

---

In the wording of the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggression is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole all the evil in the tortured land of Iraq that flowed from the US-UK invasion, for example.
https://chomsky.info/20060509/

---

Hillary’s authorization for the criminal invasion of Iraq, championing and recruiting other senators to join her, and repeatingly funding the illegal and immoral invasion AFTER it had been confirmed there were NEVER any WMD shows she is CLEARLY responsible for ALL the evil that followed from her authorizing the criminal invasion of Iraq.
______Use of DEPLETED URANIUM:

quote:

---

Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure because, in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal,[7] although less toxic than other heavy metals, such as arsenic and mercury.[73] It is weakly radioactive but is 'persistently' so because of its long half-life. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that: "to be exposed to radiation from uranium, you have to eat, drink, or breathe it, or get it on your skin."[74] If DU particles do enter an individual, the type of danger presentedtoxic vs. radiologicaland the organ most likely to be affected depend on the solubility of the particles.[75]

​

Since 2001, medical personnel at the Basra hospital in southern Iraq have reported a sharp increase in the incidence of child leukemia and genetic malformation among babies born in the decade following the Gulf War.

​

Depleted uranium - Wikipedia

---

quote:

---

US forces fired depleted uranium (DU) weapons at civilian areas and troops in Iraq in breach of official advice meant to prevent unnecessary suffering in conflicts, a report has found.

​

This conflicts with legal advice from the US Air Force in 1975 suggesting that DU weapons should only be used against hard targets like tanks and armoured vehicles, the report says. This advice, designed to comply with international law by minimising deaths and injuries to urban populations and troops, was largely ignored by US forces, it argues.

​

More than 300,000 DU rounds are estimated to have been fired during the 2003 Iraq war, the vast majority by US forces. A small fraction were from UK tanks, the coordinates for which were provided to the UN Environment Programme. A further 782,414 DU rounds are believed to have been fired during the earlier conflict in 1991, mostly by US forces.

​

The Democratic congressman, Jim McDermott, is now urging the US Department of Defence to publish all its DU firing coordinates. "These weapons have had terrible health ramifications for Iraqi civilians," he said. "The least the US could do is provide the specific targeting data so the Iraqi government can begin the complex clean-up process."

​

US fired depleted uranium at civilian areas in 2003 Iraq war, report finds | Iraq | The Guardian

---

Use of depleted uranium weapons that continues to cause birth defects:

quote:

---

Today, 14.7 percent of Fallujah’s babies are born with birth defects, 14 times the documented rate in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallujah’s babies have also experienced heart defects 13 times the European rate and nervous system defects 33 times that of Europe.That comes on top of a 12-fold rise in childhood cancer rates since 2004.

​

Iraqi Birth Defects Are Much Worse Than Hiroshima |

---

___

quote:

---

Brian Schweitzer, the former Democratic governor of Montana and a potential rival to Clinton in 2016, took a not-so-subtle jab at the former Secretary of State and senator from New York. Schweitzer seemed to suggest that, without citing names, anyone who voted for the Iraq War was still, more than eleven years out from that controversial vote, disqualified from holding the office of the president.
http://nationalinterest.org/...q-war-vote-still-matters-9737

---

Indeed.
___As I wrote:Given the three voting choices of Stein, Hitler Hillary, and something possably worse than Hitler Hillary, Percy has repeatedly argued that the second option, the war criminal that horrifically targeted dark-skinned children, Hitler Hillary was the BEST choice.When considering the tortured dark-skinned Iraqi children (abnormal behavior according to Percy), I could hardly agree. Edited by Admin, : Downsize images.

Wow.Well, that certainly convinced me. If a GERMAN Shephard can like and respect Hitler, how can I possibly argue otherwise?

It's not my views which matter. I was referring to the views of the voters. And yes, maybe Clinton was the best one possible. My point is that the method of selection currently under use doesn't help verify this as well as it could. Whether or not it impacted the 2016 election doesn't mean it remains a real risk that a better candidate (meaning one that will get more votes in the election, not one that I prefer) may lose in the Primaries. Which introduces said risk of loss through protest vote. An alternate system of selection would help determine the chances of this being the case. That's all I was arguing. I can't believe I keep having to say she got less votes than Trump in the election that matters. Absolute numbers are meaningless when the number of people that vote goes up all the time. The number of votes a person gets traditionally goes up over time. What matters is the margin. Her margin was very close, close enough that the bumpiness introduced by the electoral college matters. She would only be non-optimal if another candidate would have got more votes even that her. It's the method of selection which is non-optimal. Hence my saying...'If they can't find candidates more optimally'. I'm hoping the DNC is better at this than you. I'd vote for a candidate who moved a decent amount leftwards, even if it was still not very close to me. Which is fine - if this is true then no change is therefore required. As I've said. Then stop saying I'm voting against my best interests, because that timescale will be my response again. I hope this explains why I don't see it as voting against my own best interests. Indeed - and maybe my views of where we should be going, and my voting strategy, will change accordingly. Which was still 3 days previous when I did it. Hardly an old post. I didn't think something you'd said 3 days ago would be something you forgot, especially when I quote it to you. Apologies for any confusion it brought. I've been consistently talking abouta) Changing the primary system to avoid the potential problem of nominated someone who is the number one preference of the plurality but would not get the most votes due to being disliked by more people than an alternative.b) Changing other features, such as electoral college vote distribution in the States to reduce the importance of swing states in the election and better represent the will of the people.c) I view my best interests as a long term project not a short term one.a) and b) could see some changes in the near future, but universal adoption of my ideas across all States is something I expect to be gradual until a tipping point is achieved.c) is obvious. Which I would put under 'changing people'. You notion is to change the way the people make voting decisions. In this case, through the use of fear. That's the method the Democrats went with, but for a variety of reasons either people didn't believe them or they decided that this possibility was not sufficient reason. I'm in the latter, as I have posted, were others.

If your motto is "more cowbell this time", you should probably find a new topic to rant on.

And I am so sorry to irritate you with my harping (I tire of it too). I sincerely wish there wasn’t someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read every post in the thread. Gosh, it has to be a million times more annoying then those dark-skinned Iraqis who continue to suffer silently and invisibly in the corporate media from Hillary’s criminal actions.

I think you're still forgetting to take your meds.--Percy

Perhaps.But here's something I won't forget or sweep under the carpet . . . Hillary’s criminal actions that led to the torture and violent deaths of dark-skinned Iraqi children.Coming tomorrow, watch for my post about Hillary Clinton and the indiscriminate use of Cluster Bombs.With all new photos!

Please no, or at least do thumbnails so we can skim past.

No irritation and no gun involved. I am often morbidly entertained by watching people display their psychological problems in public, sort of like being transfixed while watching a dumpster fire.